4.7 Article

Life's Simple 7 and Incidence of Diabetes Among American Indians: The Strong Heart Family Study

期刊

DIABETES CARE
卷 37, 期 8, 页码 2240-2245

出版社

AMER DIABETES ASSOC
DOI: 10.2337/dc13-2267

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute [U01-HL41642, U01-HL41652, UL01-HL41654, U01-HL65520, U01-HL65521]
  2. [I-T32-HL07902]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVE The American Heart Association's recommendations for optimal health, summarized in Life's Simple 7, have been associated with reduced risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD)-related end points, but no studies have examined the association of these goals with incident type 2 diabetes, which is associated with high risk for CVD. The purpose of this analysis was to examine the associations of Life's Simple 7 goals with incident diabetes among American Indians, a population at high risk of cardiometabolic diseases. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS Strong Heart Family Study participants without diabetes (n = 1,639) at baseline and who participated in a follow-up examination were included in the analysis. Risk scores ranging from 0 to 7 were created using physical activity, diet, BMI, smoking, blood pressure, fasting glucose, and cholesterol metrics in accordance with Life's Simple 7 goals. Diabetes was defined using 2003 American Diabetes Association criteria, including use of insulin or oral antidiabetes medication or a follow-up fasting plasma glucose level >= 126 mg/dL. Generalized estimating equations were used to examine the association of risk scores with incident diabetes. RESULTS During a mean 5-year follow-up (range 4-8 years), we identified 210 cases of incident type 2 diabetes. Compared with participants who achieved 0-1 goals, those who achieved 2-3 or 4+ goals had lower odds of diabetes, with odds ratios = 0.40 (95% CI 0.29-0.56) and 0.11 (95% CI 0.05-0.21), respectively. CONCLUSIONS The adoption of as few as two or three Life's Simple 7 goals is associated with a lower risk of diabetes.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据